Met by silence I dug deeper
I approached one of Melbourne’s bike police at a community workshop about cycling, thinking it’d be interesting to get his perspective, without considering what we might talk about. Maybe I thought I’d be able to convince him that punishing cyclists for failing to wear a helmet or running red lights wasn’t the most effective way to reduce the road toll. I’ve always thought of myself as the kind of person who could talk to policeman.
The policeman was young and lean. He was enmired in a conversation with one of my inspired but intense bike friends, who was telling him about his campaign, Drive to Work Day. Drive To Work Day is a national day where all cyclists take to their cars, to show how bikes help reduce congestion. I’m not that into it as a campaign idea; I find the idea a bit negative.
As I walked up to them the friend introduced me. ‘This is ____ , he’s a legend! He’s actually a cyclist. You may have seen him at the Zero Budget rally.’ We had an easy conversation about the Zero Budget (zero money for bikes in the state budget) – the policeman agreed it was bad. I didn’t find out whether he was at the rally as an individual or on duty.
Then my friend was like, ‘So, you gonna join me on Drive To Work Day by running Bikes On Strike?’ In response to the Zero Budget, the idea of Bikes On Strikes had come up, where cyclists take to public transport with their helmets or placards or something. My friend thought we could run them in tandem.
The policeman seemed uncomprehending and possibly wary, and for some reason I felt a bit embarrassed, thinking that these ideas must seem ridiculous to him, and he probably thinks we’re a bit fringe and nutty. I tried to explain the logic behind Drive To Work, but the policeman didn’t give me any validating signs so I quickly abandoned the thread.
‘Anyway, what do you guys get up to?’ I asked.
‘Oh, you know, enforcement. We have periodic campaigns.’
‘Oh yeah, you mean, like Operation Halo.’
I couldn’t think of anything good to say about Operation Halo, which seemed to me to be more about blaming vulnerable road users than protecting them, so I popped out this one: ‘I’ve always wondered if I could outrun the police if they tried to catch me.’ I kind of thought it was going to be this jokey tension-reliever, as it would have been if I was talking to my friends.
No response, so I explained further. ‘Yeah, like in a stand off between me and the police, would I win.’
He gave me a look best interpreted as disbelief at my stupidity. ‘Really. Yeah, there are a few people that do that.’
‘Of course I’d never to do it,’ I quickly clarified.
Met by silence, I dug deeper. ‘I mean, it’s just a fantasy.’
In my social interactions I work off this theory, which I’ve never really interrogated, that awkwardness can be overcome by sharing an honest story, particularly an embarrassing, self-deprecating one, and that if you just be yourself, people will like you. As I get older I’m realising this theory is fundamentally flawed as it rests on an assumption that others think similarly to you. I’m not sure why it’s taken nearly 30 years to work this out.
Me: ‘So……what issues are you working on right now?’
Him: ‘Well, cyclists without lights is becoming an increasing problem.’
I wasn’t sure what to say. I think focusing on cyclists’ personal responsibility is misguided as a safety strategy, but fair enough, riding without lights is dodgy.
My friend declared that he never rides without lights, and in fact, that’s why he was walking home tonight.
The policeman told us: ‘Believe it or not I’ve seen some cyclists riding along, no lights, wearing all black!’ He shook his head in disbelief.
‘Oh, I ride without lights sometimes,’ I revealed stupidly, in reflexive defence of the cyclists so roundly condemned as irresponsible.
The policeman and my friend both looked at me in surprise. I pedalled backwards, adopting a low, calm voice. ‘Oh you know, sometimes when you get stuck out at night, and your light goes flat, you don’t want to leave your bike in the city so you have to ride home. I mean…on the footpath…slowly.’
‘Fair enough, that’s a different thing then,’ said the young policeman.
Who brought this uni student?
After the meet and greet was over, we did some activities where we rotated tables and swapped ideas. As it turned out I spent a lot of time on tables with police.
I quickly realised how far apart our ideas were. One policeman said that if you take road space away from motorists by putting in a bike lane, you have to give them something back. I decided to leave that comment, so I never really found out what he thought it would mean in practice to give something back – new roads, perhaps?
At another table, a cyclist put forward the idea of making some of the major roads ie William, Elizabeth, one-way, as in some European cities.
One of the policeman was like, ‘You can’t have that, it’ll just throw the traffic into chaos.’
Without knowing much about the actual proposal, I chipped in: ‘Chaos is not always a bad thing.’
‘Really?’ he said, sounding doubtful.
‘No. If you have unpredictability in the urban environment, people are like, what’s going on here, and they slow down and exercise more care. That’s good for cyclists. Whereas if you have certainty, people think they can just hoon up the road without looking.’
He wasn’t impolite, but looked a little incredulous, perhaps thinking who brought this uni student? For a moment I felt like maybe he was the face of commonsense, and I was really just living in fairyland.
People have a right to get to work safely by some means of transport
Another policeman commented, ‘I’ll tell you one thing I disagree with that’s been said here. We can’t make Melbourne a cycling city in four years. We CAN make it a city safe for cycling. Understand my distinction here?’
Another cycling friend, who has this kind of slippery way of talking sometimes, says, ‘Oh, great, well that’s what we want too, so it sounds like we’re on the same page. We want to make Melbourne a city safe for bikes too. Actually, that will probably involve making it a cycling city though.’
I tried to explain to him how making something a cycling city could actually make it safer for cyclists. I told him that cars treated me more respectfully on Canning Street than, say, Arthurton Road, where motorists were like, what the hell are you doing here, get off the road!
Or how, on Spring Street, I refuse to ride in the bike lane, a narrow painted lanebuilt alongside car doors, and instead ride in the middle of the traffic lane, but motorists often beep and gesticulate for me to ‘Get in the bike lane!’
‘What I am saying is that if you legitimise cyclists through the urban environment, motorists will be more careful and respectful too, and they’ll be safer.’ He seemed to have some sympathy for this view.
‘See the thing is, Melbourne’s always going to be a car city. We’ve never going to be Europe. We’re closer to America. We’ve got a very strong car culture. But there need to be safe avenues for cyclists. I think cyclists have the right to have safe avenues to their workplace.’
Me: ‘Yes, people have a human right to ride on the roads without fear of being killed.’
He hesitated, seeming unsure of this characterisation of the principle.’Well…yes, in a way. People have a right to get to work safety by some means of transport.’